The real truth on SRKW

[Peahead]

If you ever read any of my posts you would see I completely disagree with the ENGO positions on shutting down all recreational and commercial activity. But of course on this forum if you believe the science that the whales are in distress and it requires actions you are one of the enemy. It's why the ENGOs will unfortunately win due to ignorance like yours and nonsense like srkw.org

I'd have to say California you do offer an opinion here that I find intersting and welcome. You seem to look at this without too much bias. I think your opinion should not be looked down upon and as long as you provide an honest perspective and opinion no need to escort you out of here - lol . I of course have always been very concerned that Chinook fishing would be closed in certain areas for absolutely no benefit to the SRKW. On the other hand if science is proving that vessel activity and sport fishing activity in proven SRKW foraging areas is causing foraging difficulty and removing the activity was likely to improve the health of SRKW, I don't think you would find many sportfishers would have an issue with fishing Chinook in another spot. I still disagree with you that the bulk of sportfishers just want to bonk Chinook and are unwilling to curtail Chinook fishing activities if they saw the evidence that it would even remotely help.

 

[fish brain]

I am an SFI member and am obviously supportive of their efforts to protect our access to our fisheries.

That being said, I think this missed the mark.

My opinion is that the focus should have been on:

1) the conservation and enhancement efforts of the rec sector. Salmon stamp $, stream keepers, habitat enhancement, donations, etc. Probably lots of good data and information could have been provided there...more than just small commentary.

2) the economic benefit of the sport fishing industry in bc. This is simply not emphasized enough. More numbers on participants and $ spent and all the direct and indirect spend. I could name 50 places I spent $ this year as a result of my participation in rec fishing.

Those two referenced but not that well supported with facts and data. . These are hard to debate and are more about what the sector provides and not about pointing fingers at seals, etc. (And I am in favour of a seal cull).

Part 3 could then empahize the other risks faced by the SRKW. Vessel traffic, salmon predation, toxins, etc. Lots of good info on these which certainly points out Chinook numbers and Rec fishing are far from the only cause.

I agree the information is presented in a way that makes me want to raise an eyebrow and go Hmmmm. I wonder about those facts. I believe a better presentation would have been to address the concern and counter it with at least one solution per topic. And put tons of emphasis on sport fishers enhancement work and economic benefits associated with a healthy Sport Fish sector, because ultimately a healthy rec sector will be healthy for the whales .
However this is Real Truth is out in the wild now and we might as well get behind it, because bickering and fighting will get us nowhere.

 

[SerengetiGuide]

Great website Very informative.

 

[searun]

I think the website is a decent start towards documenting some of the facts around SRKW issues, including some of the myths being advanced by some of the ENGO's.

I'm sure some folks here have read this interesting expose article calling out false "factoids" being quoted by the green ENGO groups in their effort to paint a certain picture - fake news if ever I have seen it:

https://achemistinlangley.net/2018/...about-acoustic-threats-and-survivorship-bias/

Could the website be better - certainly. Will that transpire over time - yes. Let's not forget this is a start. What would I like to see going forward? Well, for starters we need to offer up some alternatives to the main threat pillars. Most important in my mind is addressing Physical and Acoustic Disturbance that impedes whale foraging behaviour and success. We know the whales are nutritionally stressed - we don't know precisely why. But there is strong evidence that whale feeding behaviours decrease by 18 to 25% when there are vessels following them.

I would like to see the Rec Fishing community adopt strong regulations requiring them to maintain a 400m spatial exclusion zone (bubble zone) when whales approach or are in a fishing area. That looks like fishers doing the following or more:

1. pull fishing gear when whales are nearby (400m)
2. turn off sounders, unless required for safe navigation
3. slowly (under 7 knots) leave the 400m spatial exclusion area
4. stay away from areas where there are foraging killer whales
5. impose serious fines for offenders on an escalating scale ($100 first offence; $1,000 second; $5,000 third)

We have to avoid loving them to death and also stop things like this (note - taken directly from websites promoting this activity) And, to be fair I'm sure we have rec fishers who get just a close - it all has to stop:

 

[searun]

And, the 400m exclusion zone is based on DFO science that established the same distance for other whale species - what is wrong here on the west coast?

Little wonder killer whales are "nutritionally stressed" - how can they acquire food/prey when they are being followed so closely? All vessel operators should be following the same 400m bubble zone strategy that was adopted to protect other whale species. Proven fact/observation that when whales are followed closely, their feeding activity is disrupted (18 - 25% reduction).

And, we seem to be so quick to say that there isn't enough food for whales and that closing vast areas to recreational fishing is going to make up the difference. Are there are no other viable alternatives to achieve that balance between protection, improving prey acquisition and fisheries values that impact small coastal communities and families that depend upon them?

 

[Charter Tofino]

First off, thanks to the SFI for working hard and putting this together. It’s a tough and thankless job.

I do echo the thoughts of a few that this has turned into a PR game and we need a positive approach with a focus on rec benefits (habitat restoration, Net pens, hatchery funding etc). The many issues facing SRKW do need to be addressed but the seal cull approach will force ENGOs to dig their heels in and the general public to withdraw support.

 

[wildmanyeah]

BCWF has done just that most of it media and funding goes to conservation and promoting what hunters and fishermen do for the environment. They and most sports fishing groups have took this approach over the last many years. Alot of people have been asking for a group to take more of an activist approach for sports fishing interests and I think that is what SFI is providing.

from BCWF:

Everyday the BCWF is working to advocate on behalf of British Columbia's fish and wildlife. Some of the projects we are working include but are not limited to:

• Combating rapid development in the Heart of the Fraser to protect crucial white sturgeon and salmoid habitat.
  
• Working to protect what's left of the Thompson and Chilcotin Steelhead by recognizing them as endangered species.
  
• Learning how to restore mule deer populations in BC by studying how landscape change and the predator prey community are affecting our current populations.
  
• Leading numerous wetlands activities that result in habitat restoration, enhancement and conservation projects.
  
• Working with the BC Government and local communities to help increase the abundancy of fish and wildlife that presently continue to decline.

Help be the voice of BC's fish and wildlife and speak for those who can't speak for themselves.

 

[GLG]

I think the website is a decent start towards documenting some of the facts around SRKW issues, including some of the myths being advanced by some of the ENGO's.

I'm sure some folks here have read this interesting expose article calling out false "factoids" being quoted by the green ENGO groups in their effort to paint a certain picture - fake news if ever I have seen it:

https://achemistinlangley.net/2018/...about-acoustic-threats-and-survivorship-bias/

Could the website be better - certainly. Will that transpire over time - yes. Let's not forget this is a start. What would I like to see going forward? Well, for starters we need to offer up some alternatives to the main threat pillars. Most important in my mind is addressing Physical and Acoustic Disturbance that impedes whale foraging behaviour and success. We know the whales are nutritionally stressed - we don't know precisely why. But there is strong evidence that whale feeding behaviours decrease by 18 to 25% when there are vessels following them.

I would like to see the Rec Fishing community adopt strong regulations requiring them to maintain a 400m spatial exclusion zone (bubble zone) when whales approach or are in a fishing area. That looks like fishers doing the following or more:

1. pull fishing gear when whales are nearby (400m)
2. turn off sounders, unless required for safe navigation
3. slowly (under 7 knots) leave the 400m spatial exclusion area
4. stay away from areas where there are foraging killer whales
5. impose serious fines for offenders on an escalating scale ($100 first offence; $1,000 second; $5,000 third)

We have to avoid loving them to death and also stop things like this (note - taken directly from websites promoting this activity) And, to be fair I'm sure we have rec fishers who get just a close - it all has to stop:

A Chemist from Langley is out to lunch with his argument that TMX will reduce the amount of tankers on the US side and therefore increase habitat for SRKW. Those refinery's run on sweet light crude and TMX is all about heavy sour crude. You just can't expect that result when the facts don't support it. Please don't use any of his material to support our community. He is not creditable.

I sure could support this for our sector, can you incorporate that into your new website?

"I would like to see the Rec Fishing community adopt strong regulations requiring them to maintain a 400m spatial exclusion zone (bubble zone) when whales approach or are in a fishing area. That looks like fishers doing the following or more:

1. pull fishing gear when whales are nearby (400m)
2. turn off sounders, unless required for safe navigation
3. slowly (under 7 knots) leave the 400m spatial exclusion area
4. stay away from areas where there are foraging killer whales
5. impose serious fines for offenders on an escalating scale ($100 first offence; $1,000 second; $5,000 third)"

 

[Peahead]

I think the website is a decent start towards documenting some of the facts around SRKW issues, including some of the myths being advanced by some of the ENGO's.

I'm sure some folks here have read this interesting expose article calling out false "factoids" being quoted by the green ENGO groups in their effort to paint a certain picture - fake news if ever I have seen it:

https://achemistinlangley.net/2018/...about-acoustic-threats-and-survivorship-bias/

Could the website be better - certainly. Will that transpire over time - yes. Let's not forget this is a start. What would I like to see going forward? Well, for starters we need to offer up some alternatives to the main threat pillars. Most important in my mind is addressing Physical and Acoustic Disturbance that impedes whale foraging behaviour and success. We know the whales are nutritionally stressed - we don't know precisely why. But there is strong evidence that whale feeding behaviours decrease by 18 to 25% when there are vessels following them.

I would like to see the Rec Fishing community adopt strong regulations requiring them to maintain a 400m spatial exclusion zone (bubble zone) when whales approach or are in a fishing area. That looks like fishers doing the following or more:

1. pull fishing gear when whales are nearby (400m)
2. turn off sounders, unless required for safe navigation
3. slowly (under 7 knots) leave the 400m spatial exclusion area
4. stay away from areas where there are foraging killer whales
5. impose serious fines for offenders on an escalating scale ($100 first offence; $1,000 second; $5,000 third)

We have to avoid loving them to death and also stop things like this (note - taken directly from websites promoting this activity) And, to be fair I'm sure we have rec fishers who get just a close - it all has to stop:

I have posted this Puget Sound WA "Governor's Southern Resident Orca Recovery Task Force" poster before but just can't locate which thread I posted it to, so here it is again below. It is a quick reference poster for both quideline and some that are law.
What is interesting is that with regards to your point #2 above about transducers/sounders, they have been more specific in that they state the 200Khz frequency is not a problem but that the 50khz transducers should not be used (or turned off). Also I note as far as distances they state 200m bubble zone for Orcas as law but also state a 400m slow zone and law states a no go 400m zone for the area in front of the Orcas direction of travel.

https://pspwa.app.box.com/v/orca-task-force-boating-guide

http://psp.wa.gov/recovery-of-southern-resident-orcas.php

 

[searun]

Thanks for the input. I did read the Governor's Task Force material. Quite impressed with their lets get it right, engage all the stakeholders, and get help shaping our planned approach.

Significantly different approach than what we experienced here in Canada. So far the notion of consultation has been more "telling" than consulting to truly listen and gather best practices and more importantly, to take the time to get it right. Certainly came across that way in the Web X session - there were questions regarding the lack of actual empirical evidence to support the science advice conclusions on areas under consideration for CH extension...basically told that the science was peer reviewed by CSAS and we need to trust it - but how do we trust science that is clearly flawed and built upon supposition and a bunch of cobbled together inferences?

I counted the actual documented observed encounters from Pachena to Long Beach out on LaPerouse from the science evidence offered in the web x, and it is 34 encounters in 40 years. How is that evidence this habitat area is critically important to the recovery of resident killer whales, when there is no evidence they are actually there more than once a year? What is wrong with taking the time to place a few passive acoustic monitors in the proposed extension area to gather actual facts and then make an assessment? Getting it right is critically important, not only for the whales so we don't waste time pursuing recovery strategies that are baseless, but also for small coastal communities that rely heavily on these fisheries to support real working families - or perhaps that doesn't matter if you are a city dweller - who perhaps never once visited LaPerouse to see for themselves.

 

[Peahead]

^^^ agree 100% with searun's post above. Then again I suppose I have agreed with just about every point he has brought fwd about this topic....

 

[ziggy]

A Chemist from Langley is out to lunch with his argument that TMX will reduce the amount of tankers on the US side and therefore increase habitat for SRKW. Those refinery's run on sweet light crude and TMX is all about heavy sour crude. You just can't expect that result when the facts don't support it. Please don't use any of his material to support our community. He is not creditable.

I sure could support this for our sector, can you incorporate that into your new website?

"I would like to see the Rec Fishing community adopt strong regulations requiring them to maintain a 400m spatial exclusion zone (bubble zone) when whales approach or are in a fishing area. That looks like fishers doing the following or more:

1. pull fishing gear when whales are nearby (400m)
2. turn off sounders, unless required for safe navigation
3. slowly (under 7 knots) leave the 400m spatial exclusion area
4. stay away from areas where there are foraging killer whales
5. impose serious fines for offenders on an escalating scale ($100 first offence; $1,000 second; $5,000 third)"

The Puget Sound pipeline carries Alberta Oil to the Washington Refineries right now does it not, both heavy and light? I think his point is that if more Alberta Oil is available via the TMX then the Tankers from Alaska and even Russia (most recently)will not be required to come into the Straits to deliver an oil supply to those Refineries. I also believe he is one of the few people who have taken the time to try and understand acoustic disturbances caused by shipping.

 

[GLG]

The Puget Sound pipeline carries Alberta Oil to the Washington Refineries right now does it not, both heavy and light? I think his point is that if more Alberta Oil is available via the TMX then the Tankers from Alaska and even Russia (most recently)will not be required to come into the Straits to deliver an oil supply to those Refineries. I also believe he is one of the few people who have taken the time to try and understand acoustic disturbances caused by shipping.

Great question Ziggy. Yes the Puget Sound Line is a spur off the existing pipeline and has a capacity of 180k barrels a day and it's full. Not sure what is in it for grade of oil but because the current pipeline is a batch line it can be any grade of crude, jet or diesel. Best guess is medium grade with minor amounts of heavy at times. There is no plan to build a new spur from the new expansion pipeline. That means there will be no new oil after the TMX is built unless they decide to load a tanker and send it 100km down where the current pipeline goes. That would be dumb of course. Here is a link to a couple PDF's, if you are curious, that gives you a window as to what is going on there. You will see that it makes no sense that there will be less tankers. Now if they built a new spur and upgrade the dilbit to something that the refineries could use then yes we could get rid of all the tankers maybe or a bunch of rail cars....
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/1808005.pdf
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/1708014.pdf

 

[ziggy]

Great question Ziggy. Yes the Puget Sound Line is a spur off the existing pipeline and has a capacity of 180k barrels a day and it's full. Not sure what is in it for grade of oil but because the current pipeline is a batch line it can be any grade of crude, jet or diesel. Best guess is medium grade with minor amounts of heavy at times. There is no plan to build a new spur from the new expansion pipeline. That means there will be no new oil after the TMX is built unless they decide to load a tanker and send it 100km down where the current pipeline goes. That would be dumb of course. Here is a link to a couple PDF's, if you are curious, that gives you a window as to what is going on there. You will see that it makes no sense that there will be less tankers. Now if they built a new spur and upgrade the dilbit to something that the refineries could use then yes we could get rid of all the tankers maybe or a bunch of rail cars....
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/1808005.pdf
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/1708014.pdf

I see your point if in fact Puget Sound is operating at 100% and if there was no plan to expand. I see mention of a Puget Sound Expansion Plan but no details, I’ll continue the search
All in all though one would seem the environmentalists would leap at the chance to expand a 60 some odd mile pipeline to eliminate substantial Tanker and Rail Transportation?

 

[terrin]

I see your point if in fact Puget Sound is operating at 100% and if there was no plan to expand. I see mention of a Puget Sound Expansion Plan but no details, I’ll continue the search
All in all though one would seem the environmentalists would leap at the chance to expand a 60 some odd mile pipeline to eliminate substantial Tanker and Rail Transportation?

Would that not go against Notley and crew stated need to diversify away from the American discount on their Raw Bitumen. Funny how they never mention which country that is actually signed up to recieve these tankers going through downtown Vancouver.

 

[searun]

Not to side track the thread too heavily, but if asked my preference (trains v pipeline) to move this stuff, I vote for pipeline as it is far safer than rail.

The unfortunate reality is in their rush to be seen to be doing something to address the threats to killer whales (increased tanker traffic) this government is bending the science to put in place the cheapest possible solutions, not the most effective. Has there been any analysis to measure the positive benefits of the Area Closures to rec fishing? How many more chinook were actually made available as potential prey, how many actually were consumed by whales as opposed to providing food for pinnipeds, was there any measurable increase in actual RKW forage activity in the closed areas? I venture to say none, because despite promises to apply science and measure these things, no actual measurement was undertaken to my knowledge other than some enforcement patrols. Where is the so called science?

We need to be prepared to spend the money required to address issues that will make a real difference for whales, not apply measures that are purely window dressing. How about funding hatcheries and habitat, addressing problem pinnipeds, implementing a 400m spatial exclusion zone coast wide so that whales are protected where-ever they roam. Why not? Because if you read the Ministers direction letter, he clearly stated we want to find the lowest cost solutions possible. Why - so we can push our pipeline agenda without spending too much because the kitty is dry after we purchased the pipeline perhaps?

 

[california]

I'd have to say California you do offer an opinion here that I find intersting and welcome. You seem to look at this without too much bias. I think your opinion should not be looked down upon and as long as you provide an honest perspective and opinion no need to escort you out of here - lol .

Thanks for not wanting to escort me out (yet).

The unfortunate reality is in their rush to be seen to be doing something to address the threats to killer whales (increased tanker traffic) this government is bending the science to put in place the cheapest possible solutions, not the most effective. Has there been any analysis to measure the positive benefits of the Area Closures to rec fishing? How many more chinook were actually made available as potential prey, how many actually were consumed by whales as opposed to providing food for pinnipeds, was there any measurable increase in actual RKW forage activity in the closed areas? I venture to say none, because despite promises to apply science and measure these things, no actual measurement was undertaken to my knowledge other than some enforcement patrols. Where is the so called science?

I don't disagree that ironclad science would be nice, but it unfortunately isn't the reality. The kind of definitive data you ask for above would require significant robust baseline data, likely requiring full time observation to enumerate all SRKW activity in proposed exclusion zones. Probably at least 3 years and probably 5 followed by a post closure study period of at least the same length. It doesn't exist so would need to be strted next year. That isn't going to happen, we are in a new activist era ushered in by Blackfish, one where Sea World with its unlimited PR resources producing much more slick PR than SRKW.org was brought to its knees because it did not have the animals interests at heart. Waiting years for action is not going to happen and taking the position that nothing should happen is a losing one. SRKW.org gives the message that there really isn't much of a problem as whales populations in general are healthy and SRKW are higher than the 66 post aquarium removal (a cherry picked baseline), followed by complaining bout sportfishing being scapegoated (which obviously has some truth to it) , while then scapegoating seals as THE problem. While these messages will be popular with many on this site, that's not the audience PR is for. Its to garner support from the general public, and put pressure on the government in this case to listen to our concerns and ideas. But the best idea we can come up with is kill the seals isn't going to get us much. The most credible scientists of the day say the whales are in distress, their prognosis is poor, and action in the form of reducing physical and acoustic disturbance is needed. That's the baseline like it or not that all stakeholders have to work with and we chose to go against it.

 

[GLG]

I see your point if in fact Puget Sound is operating at 100% and if there was no plan to expand. I see mention of a Puget Sound Expansion Plan but no details, I’ll continue the search
All in all though one would seem the environmentalists would leap at the chance to expand a 60 some odd mile pipeline to eliminate substantial Tanker and Rail Transportation?

OK.... I did some more digging. There is a plan to expand the old Trans Mountain line to go from 300k b/d to 350k b/d. They are also going to add a tank at Sumas with pump to increase from 180k b/d to 230k b/d on the Puget Sound Line as best as I can figure. There is no official number that I could find. That number is what I could dig up from records (2016) where it seems they ran a month of mostly light crude with little else going to other points. Perhaps a test to see if they could flow the light crude at design specifications of that pipeline spur. Regardless, Puget Sound has refinery capacity of 640k b/d so there is still need to delivery crude by boat or train one way or another.

Have to agree with Searun that pipeline is safer than rail but I have found no official info to suggest that they would decrease any rail in the Fraser Valley if this expansion were to take place. I'm sure they would not put themselves on record to agree to that.

One thing I hate about this whole thing is the difficulty of finding reliable information from trusted sources.

So in summary, I don't see any real evidence that there will be less tanker traffic, due to the expansion of this pipeline, that would open up a new area that SRKW would move into based on the "Survivor Effect". Just too much crude flowing into Puget Sound.

 

[OldBlackDog]

The area that is not being addressed is the general public.

They are getting their information from the news outlets.
That information is there are not enough fish for them.

If you type into google, killer whales it is all about lack of salmon.

That is what we need to concern ourselves with.

 

[california]

So in summary, I don't see any real evidence that there will be less tanker traffic, due to the expansion of this pipeline, that would open up a new area that SRKW would move into based on the "Survivor Effect". Just too much crude flowing into Puget Sound.

Here is an article that looks at some of the issues involved in the Puget Sound pipeline and how it might reduce tanker traffic, or might not, without making moral conclusions about them. The WA refineries have a limited ability to refine Bitumen, but it doesn't mean they can't or wont expand that ability if it makes economic sense.
https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/08/...rans-mountain-derail-canada-pipeline-purchase